Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-170 - State v. Edwards

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Denise Edwards, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
 Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-170
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed April 27, 2009


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Denise Edwards appeals her convictions and sentences for murder and homicide by child abuse.  Edwards argues the trial court erred by refusing to require the State to elect between the charges of murder and homicide by child abuse, and by admitting hearsay testimony from an expert witness.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Hall, 280 S.C. 74, 77, 310 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1983) (explaining our Supreme Court “has held on numerous occasions that ‘when a single act combines the requisite ingredients of two distinct offenses, the defendant may be severally indicted and punished for each’”) (quoting State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589, 59 S.E.2d 168, 171 (1950)); State v. Northcutt, 372 S.C. 207, 215, 641 S.E.2d 873, 877 (2007) (holding “[h]omicide by child abuse is not a lesser included offense of murder” because murder does not include the element of the victim being eleven or younger); Jackson v. Speed, 326 S.C. 289, 305, 486 S.E.2d 750, 758 (1997) (“Where the hearsay is merely cumulative to other evidence, its admission is harmless.”). 

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.